This is an action brought by the pro se plaintiff, Kareem Shamel Perry, to recover $52,616.50 from the defendant Natasha Parrilla and $52,616.50 from the defendant Theresa Fisher. The plaintiff Kareem Perry alleges that he inherited property from his late grandmother, Ivy M. Fisher, and appointed Natasha Parrilla to handle the estate due to his incarceration. Perry further alleges that Theresa Fisher sold the property for $700,000, that he was entitled to $105,233.03 of the proceeds from the sale, and that those proceeds were never delivered to him. Perry now moves for default judgment on the grounds that the defendants failed to respond to summons.

After reviewing Perry's affidavit of service for his notice of motion for default judgment, the motion must be denied. This Court has received no proof that the defendants were properly served. In his affidavit of service dated February 9, 2011, Kareem Perry states that he personally served the defendant Theresa Fisher with notice of default through the mail. NY C.P.L.R. § 2103 (McKinney's 1997) provides that "[e]xcept where otherwise prescribed by law or order of court, papers may be served by any person not a party of the age of eighteen years or over." Perry himself served the notice of default upon Theresa Fisher, thus conflicting with NY C.P.L.R. § 2103. Additionally, there is no evidence that the defendants Michael Fisher or Natasha Parilla were served with notice of Kareem Perry's motion for default judgment. Accordingly, because Perry did not provide proof that the defendants were properly served, the motion for default judgment must be denied. [*2]

Moreover, after reviewing the documents presented to this Court, Kareem Perry's action must be dismissed. Perry failed to demonstrate that the defendants were properly served with summons. As an initial matter, Perry's service was inadequate because he himself served the papers, again violating NY C.P.L.R. § 2103. The Second Department has stated that service of process by the party himself is a jurisdictional defect, rendering the action subject to dismissal for this reason alone. See Miller v. Bank of New York (Delaware), 226 AD2d 507, 650 N.Y.S.2d 737 (2d Dep't 1996). Furthermore, Kareem Perry violated NY C.P.L.R. § 306 by failing to supply this Court with any evidence that summons was properly served. Accordingly, Perry's claim must be dismissed. In order to further pursue recovery, Kareem Perry must serve the defendants in accordance with NY C.P.L.R. §§ 308, 2103 and provide proof of service in accordance with NY C.P.L.R. § 306.

Therefore, Kareem Perry's motion for default judgment is denied and his action dismissed.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

ENTER:

________________________

Yvonne Lewis, JSC